Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2010 July 10

Computing desk
< July 9	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 10

How do I get out of this without losing everything?

http://mudkipz.ws --138.110.206.101 (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is how to get out of the most common type of moving-window rickroll, kip roll, etc. on a PC with a minimum of effort:

• If you use the Mozilla Firefox web browser, which is sensible enough to not allow the window to move around by itself, select Tools → Options. Under the Content tab, uncheck "Enable JavaScript". Then you can leave the rickroll page, and after you do, turn JavaScript back on again.
• If you use Internet Explorer, select the window and press F12 to open the Developer Tools. Click on the Script tab, and in the small box above "Run Script" type self.alert=null;self.close() and press Enter, clicking OK to the pop-up window.
• If all else fails press Ctrl-Shift-Esc to open the Task Manager. Look for iexplore.exe (or firefox.exe if you use Firefox); select it and hit "End Task". At least you don't have to restart the computer. Repeat if the rickroll automatically opens again. Other browsers have their equivalents.

PleaseStand ^(talk) 02:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

GREAT answer PleaseStand - that's awesome information. You could also use Google Chrome. It's the fastest growing browser for a reason. I got out of it no problem.--mboverload@ 02:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Er, it's the fastest growing browser because it's brand new and has nowhere to go but up. It's easy to triple a 2% market share., harder to triple a 20% market share, and a lot harder to triple a 60% market share.

It's also pretty cool, but it's status as "Fastest growing" has more to do with basic math than with its qualities as a browser. APL (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

And Opera is immune to that particular one — it doesn't support the onbeforeunload event used to trigger the alert boxes. PleaseStand ^(talk) 12:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sadly though, that doesn't make it a good browser - it makes a browser that doesn't work correctly with sites that use the 'onbeforeunload' event legitimately. SteveBaker (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a dopey follow-up question on a related topic. Let's say there is a webpage that contains Javascript like the following:

for(i=0; i<1000; i++) { alert("hello"); };

That is, either a long (or infinite) for loop that triggers a stream of alerts (or confirms). Is there any way out? I've been frustrated by this in the past because the alert window is usually application modal and thus turning off Javascript, or even closing the browser, seems impossible. I end up having to Force Quit which is a little annoying. Is there a better way? --Mr.98 (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well... my way out of all of these things is to use NoScript and only enable Javascript on web sites that don't work without it. It's surprising how many web sites' user interfaces are actually improved by disabling Javascript. -- BenRG (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In Chrome and Opera, there will be a check box on the alert window itself to disable further alert windows. --Bavi H (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

trying a Wacom tablet

Does anybody know where can I try a Wacom tablet? In Europe, if possible. I'd like to try one before buying it. --Belchman (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend just asking a salesperson at a local computer store. In the hope that it will secure them a sale, they may be willing assist. AJCham 02:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

A couple of months ago, the sales assistant in PC World let me try a new monitor before I bought it. I simply took my laptop to the store and asked if I could plug it in to the monitor on display. Despite their reputation for poor service, the monitor worked and I paid £20 less than the sticker price (not sure if that was a discount or an error on their part).

However, it might be different for something like a tablet which will probably require you to install some driver software. That said, PC World are usually pretty good about you returning stuff so long as you keep your receipt and bring it back in perfect condition within 7 days (so open the box and CD envelope very carefully :-). Astronaut (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, guys. --Belchman (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Refurbished laptops: websites? And Dell: "Grabs" gone? How else to search then?

I'm looking into refurbished laptops. Lower end of the spectrum, most computers can do what I'm looking for. Longer expected lifetime (= several years) would be highly appreciated. Any websites you'd suggest?

Years ago, Dell had a webpage where it listed all its refurbished computers, and you could very conveniently (and probably in real-time) search their offers, narrow down your search, etc. Every time you refreshed, you could find another offer--every customer could only put up to five items into his basket and keep them for 15 minutes, so items kept popping up and disappearing... In short, it was as exciting as it was useful. I suppose that's gone, or where did they move it?

If that search engine is gone... is there any other chance to search their offers "usefully"? I'm at this website (again, if there are alternatives, I'd love to know), and for most categories (on the left), I can only check one single option, e.g., one screen size, one model, etc. [I've tried both Firefox and IE.] If I want, for example, "an Inspiron or (!) a Studio laptop," I can't check both... same for all the categories, so I'd have to do multiple, multiple searches. Waste of time, which is a bit scarce for me right now. So... any alternatives?

Thanks to you all!! --Thanks for answering (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a complete answer to your question, but in addition to the Dell Outlet that you linked to, there's Dell Financial Services, which sells equipment that was previously leased to businesses. -- Coneslayer (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Assembling a PC

I am assembling a PC from scratch for the first time, and I'm finding it's not as easy as everyone tells me. I have a bundle of wires leading from the power switch area with connectors labeled "Power Switch", "Reset Switch", "Power LED", and "HDD LED". I found the region on the motherboard where they connect; however, the connectors are in-line, so I can install them two ways (one way or turn the connector 180 degrees). Is there a right way and wrong way to do this? If I get it wrong will the PC go poof when I power it up? The installation manuals are of little help in this area. Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You can install the switches any way you like. (I generally install them label side out so I can read the labels.) The LEDs have to be installed correctly. You will know if they are not correctly installed if they don't light up. Don't worry, it wouldn't blow up. 121.72.173.157 (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

For completeness, the speaker cable can also be installed either way. 121.72.173.157 (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are the type of person who likes things to work on the first try, a good guess is that the color of wire that is common to both of the LED cables is probably the negative side on both connectors. The case of the last computer I assembled had white-colored negative wires to the LEDs. PleaseStand ^(talk) 06:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's any consultation, I've been building PCs for years and have just given up getting anything but the power button working! =) --mboverload@ 18:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It is possible to get the LED wires backwards but generally they prevent this by using a connector with one of the holes blocked off - and the corresponding pin on the motherboard is missing so you physically can't plug it in backwards. But plugging an LED in backwards doesn't hurt either it or the motherboard - it just stops it from working. Nothing else cares which way it's plugged in, you're OK on those things. SteveBaker (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleting rights in mediwiki

I have set the code in my LocalSettings.php to look like this:

$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['delete']           = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['bigdelete']        = true; // can be separately configured for pages with > $wgDeleteRevisionsLimit revs
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['deletedhistory']   = true; // can view deleted history entries, but not see or restore the text
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['deletedtext']   = true; // can view deleted revision text
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['undelete']     = false;

but I can't seem to view deleted revision text, the reverse should happen if I set it like this(able to undelete but not view deleted revision text):

$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['delete']           = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['bigdelete']        = true; // can be separately configured for pages with > $wgDeleteRevisionsLimit revs
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['deletedhistory']   = true; // can view deleted history entries, but not see or restore the text
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['deletedtext']   = false; // can view deleted revision text
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['undelete']     = true;

Is there anything I am not doing right, as it seems to not be working for me. Thanks Paul2387 10:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

By default, administrators (sysops) should be able to view deleted page text. Make sure you're logged into an administrator account (you can check this at "Special:ListUsers"). You can also try explicitly assigning the "browsearchive" user right, though really all of these should already be assigned to the sysop group by default. Other help is available at mw:Help:User rights and mw:Manual:Preventing access. Hope that helps. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

HARD DISK DRIVES

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SATA AND DIMM HARD DISK DRIVES? HOW ARE BOTH OF THEM USEFUL FOR A LAPTOP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.33.78 (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

See SATA—it's just a hard disk bus, which controls how the hard disk interacts with the overall computer. DIMM on the other hand is a way of grouping RAM memory, something quite different. Please don't type in all-caps. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

DIMMs can have a SATA interface in a DRAM based drive Unilynx (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Effects of deleting boot.ini in XP?

What would happen if I deleted boot.ini in XP? Thanks 92.15.5.169 (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Boot.ini is critical to the boot of Windows XP. [1] --mboverload@ 18:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Would my computer explode for example? 92.15.3.130 (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No, but next time you turn it on/restart it, it probably won't boot, and you'll need to go through the repair procedure in the article linked above to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unilynx (talk • contribs) 13:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolution: 1280×800 vs. 1440×900... or where do I find *no* widescreen?

I need to replace my laptop (which has 1440×900 resolution/14,1"), and what I find online are almost exclusively displays with 1280×800 or 1366×768. At least when I switch my current laptop to display in a 1280×768 resolution, it looks aweful--very blurred, and because everything is displayed bigger, the display shows considerably less (duh, it's fewer pixels :o)), and so on. I'm trying to find out if it's really possible that these new(er) laptops have such displays... or if they're using some different technology in order to display more stuff and have less blur? (Unfortunately I can't go to a store, where I could simply look at such displays.)

And/Or where do I find decently-priced laptops without widescreen with approximately 12.5" displays?

I really care about size, resolution (so that I can fit more onto the screen and still decipher it) and price (and some general specs, which seem to be fairly easy to find) because I don't game, I rarely watch movies on my laptop, and so on. Any place where you'd look, any manufacturer you'd suggest, etc.? Or even: Any internet/computer forum you'd go to to ask these questions? Heartfelt thanks (!): Thanks for answering (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well the laptop "native resolutions" you see will not be blurry. The "native resolution" of an LCD screen will be what looks like a perfect match pixel-to-pixel. It sounds like you are looking at netbooks, not laptops. LCDs generally need to run at their native resolutions if they are to look any good. Now as to why you are seeing the differences—I suspect it's just whatever models you're looking at. There is plenty of variety in laptop native resolutions, just as there is variety in the size of the laptops. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It is very hard to find laptops with non-widescreen displays. Widescreens are cheaper to make, so that's what they use. --mboverload@ 18:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's also become rarer to find ordinary LCD monitors for desktops that aren't widescreens. I sympathize. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Free software re-licensing

I'm trying to create an image showing how software under one free software license can be re-released under a different license. My attempt at this is at File:Licenses colored by license type.svg. Are there mistakes? Have I missed any relationships or major licenses? --h2g2bob (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you working from any particular listing or what? Because most of us don't know what off the top of our heads (even if we are pretty familiar with some of those licenses) and are not terribly interesting in looking up 15 of them or so and looking over their provisions quite closely. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Been working from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html mostly, which is obviously mostly about compatibility with the gpl licenses. --h2g2bob (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Widescreen LCDs cheaper to make?

I have heard throughout the years that widescreen LCDs are so prominent because manufacturers can get more widescreen from a batch than normal 4:3. I've been trying various Google searches trying to prove this with no luck. Any help? --mboverload@ 20:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that it is especially true. Widescreen LCDs for TVs are that shape because that's the fashion, and because there are now practical sources of wide format content for that aspect ratio. As LCDs for computer monitors are the same as those built for TVs (bar some high-performance ones) the cost-effective sweet-spot is just to go with the TV market. The only thing I've ever seen about aspect ratios and price is that they prefer the finished screen dimensions to evenly divide the mother glass from which they are cut (that is, without any waste left over), and the sizes of the mother glass is determined by some other standard. That said, now that LCDs are made from plastic rather than glass, I don't know if that's still an issue. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, if one is being particularly reductive, a wider aspect is probably slightly more expensive than squarer, as it requires marginally more row/column pins to address the pixels. A 1440x900 display addresses 1.3Mpixel with 2340 pins. A square 1140x1140 display addresses 1.3Mpixel with 2280 pins (woo, 2% more efficient). Clearly the cost of a few extra pins isn't a significant cost item, compared with the benefits of being in the same market space as all those TV displays. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It may be relevant that a 16:9 screen is about 12% smaller than a 4:3 screen with the same diagonal size, and the diagonal is the measurement used for advertising purposes. I have no evidence that that was a factor in the change, but it seems plausible. When I bought my old Thinkpad they had 14" and 15" models, and when I bought my new Thinkpad they had 14" and 15" models, but the aspect ratio had changed in the meantime. -- BenRG (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Usually the "widescreen is cheaper" argument is based off of the total amount of screen for a given quoted (diagonal) size. For example, a 22" 16:9 widescreen would be 19.2" by 10.8", for a total area of 207.4 sq in. This is in contrast to the 22" 4:3 display, which is 17.6" by 13.2", with a total area of 232.32 sq in; a 12% greater area from the "equivalent" 16:9 version. If production costs are dominated by area of screen produced (either because of material costs, or because a given production line can only produce a fixed area per unit time), then the widescreen will be about 10% cheaper to produce. That assumption, however, (that production cost are the dominated by the cost per square inch) is rather nebulously justified - I haven't seen any references which would confirm it. -- 174.24.195.56 (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

For a given number of pixels, the more square the aspect ratio, the cheaper the display because you save on 'addressing' logic and wiring. But I agree that the traditional way of stating screen sizes using the diagonal means that if you're comparing only that diagonal distance then the wider aspect ratio screen - being much fewer pixels - would be cheaper. So it's not really true to say that widescreen is cheaper - it's more accurate to say that people are prepared to live with fewer pixels for the same price if the resulting screen has a wider aspect ratio. SteveBaker (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(Ah! I just read the previous question about laptops.) In the case of a laptop - the screen needs to be wide enough to fill the width of a standard pitch keyboard. However, with 4:3 aspect ratio laptop screens, you end up with these wide areas of useless plastic above and below the keyboard that are needed to make the bottom half of the clamshell the same size as the top. The shape of a keyboard is more like the shape of a widescreen display - so I'm sure that's the driving force here. For a given number of pixels per inch - a widescreen laptop can be a lot cheaper than a 4:3 laptop because there are fewer pixels and less wasted case around the keyboard. Fewer pixels also means less power consumption - which means a smaller battery is needed. SteveBaker (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

My experience with the Thinkpads doesn't bear that out. There are large, useless plastic flanges around both the screen and the keyboard of the T400 that weren't there on the T40. See these pictures of the T40 and T400. The T40 makes good use of the available area, the T400 not so much. What you say is probably true of 13" and smaller netbooks where the screen is no wider than the keyboard, but the switch to 16:10 was clearly bad for the Thinkpad T series, and they did it anyway. -- BenRG (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)